Lost in a Wood of Three Trees

Written:Written September-October 1916Published:First published in 1931 inLenin Miscellany XVII.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages88-89.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thefirst issue of the BundBulletin[3](September 1916) contains a letter from a
St. Petersburg Bundist dated February 26, 1916. He writes:

“Ourdifficulty in accepting the defence formula is greatly aggravated
by the fact that we, of all people, cannot hush up the Polish question, as
our Russian comrades have so far been doing.”  (Don’t forget that this
gentleman’s “comrades” are
Potresov[4]and Co.) “And the fact that even the defencists among us do
not want to apply the ‘no annexations’ formula in relation to Russia is a
strong argument against defence in the eyes of those who are not at present
prepared to accept it psychologically. For they ask, ironically: What are
you defending? The idea of an independent Poland enjoys recognition in top
circles” (which circles is not clear).

When we stated, in our 1915 resolution, that Germanophile
chauvinism predominates in the
				Bund,[1]the only reply Kosovsky and Co. could give was abuse. Now our statement is
corroborated in their own journal, and by their own party colleague! For,
if the Bund “defencists” do not wish to apply the “no annexations”
formula “in relation toRussia” (note that there is not a word
about Germany!), then how does this differ, in substance, from Germanophile
chauvinism?

Ifthe Bundists wanted to think, and could do so, they would realise
that on the question of annexations they are wandering in the dark. There
is only one way out of their wanderings and confusion: acceptthe programme we expounded as
early as
			      1913.[2]Namely, that a conscientious andforthright anti-annexation policy requires that socialists and democrats of
the oppressed nations, in all their propaganda and agitation, denounce as
scoundrels those socialists of the oppressor nations (whether Great
Russians or Germans, Poles in relation to the Ukrainians, etc.) who do not
consistently and unreservedly stand for free secession of nations oppressedby their own nation(or forcibly held by it).

Ifthe Bundists refuse to accept that conclusion, then it isonlyout of reluctance to quarrel with the Potresovs in Russia,
the Legiens, Südekums, even the Ledebours (Ledebour doesnotfavour the secession of Alsace-Lorraine) in Germany, with the nationalists,
or to be more correct, the social-chauvinists, in Poland, etc.

Whata valid reason!

[1][PLACEHOLDERFOOTNOTE.]  —Lenin

[2][PLACEHOLDERFOOTNOTE.]  —Lenin

[3]Bund(General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland and
Russia) was composed mainly of semi-proletarian elements, Jewish
artisans in Russia’s Western areas. Was a vehicle of nationalism and
separatism in the labour movement.

Bulletinof the Bund Committee Abroad, successor to theInformation Letter of the Bund Organisation Abroad, published in
Geneva. Two issues appeared, in September and December 1916. Followed a
social-chauvinist policy. The “Letter from Russia” here quoted by Lenin
appeared in No. 1 of theBulletinand is analysed in more detail
in Lenin’s article “The Chkheidze Faction and Its Role” (see pp. 171–74
of this volume).

[4]Potresov,A. N.(1869–1934)—prominent Menshevik leader and
theoretician of liquidationism. Played a leading part in the magazinesVozrozhdeniye(Regeneration),Nasha Zarya(Our
Dawn) and other publications of the Menshevik liquidators. Took a
social-chauvinist stand in the First World War.